Comments

Written by dans about 6 years ago.

Saw the following items on FOX :

“The court’s more liberal members joined Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s dissent which she read from the bench. “The white firefighters who scored high on New Haven’s promotional exams understandably attract the court’s sympathy,” she said. “But they had no vested right to promotion.””

They had no vested right to promotion ? It would seem that at face value, Ginsburg’s opinion buries affirmative action.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy said the Supreme Court’s ruling is “likely to result in cutbacks on important protections for American families.””

Discrimination is an “important protection for American families” ? I thought that Americans families were better protected when discrimination is non-existent ? The firefighters families are also not entitled to these same “important protections” ?

Written by Eric the 1/2 troll about 6 years ago.

I typically think of discrimination as someone getting promoted (or demoted) over another based on race. As far as I can read in this case, no one was actually given a promotion (minority or not). No one was treated differently from another because of race.

This decision smells of politics, imo.

Written by Cathymac about 6 years ago.

Troll, That was the crux of the case, the exam and it’s results were thrown out desite the lack of evidence that it was imbalanced in any way. The white firefighters were denied promotions based on fear of being sued, by the municipality’s own admission.

Troll,
As ususal, your reasoning is ludicrous. Cancelling the test outcomes did discriminate against the firefighters. This is akin to calling a football game in the 59th minute on the grounds that the home team is losing. It is well understood that if the non-white firefighters had done better the results would stand. This is called rigging the process. Don’t you see that?

Written by G. Stone about 6 years ago.

Troll
I would expect you to screw up such a straight forward decision.

I was wondering if it might actually be better to HAVE the ignorant buffoon Sotomayor on the SCOTUS bench, just to serve as a living, mouth-breathing reminder to the nation of just how incompetent Barack Obama was.

Prior to his impeachment.

She would be a fitting monument to the Jabberwocky Era, as it shall be known, and serve as a continuing immunization lest the nation ever again be tempted to elect an airheaded leftist to the highest office in the land.

Written by Right Wing Kamikaze about 6 years ago.

As a former college student I hope this makes the fascist “campus diversity” people I had to endure at Virginia Tech stfu.

Written by Eric the 1/2 troll about 6 years ago.

“I would expect you to screw up such a straight forward decision.”

You boys sure like to attack anyone you don’t agree with don’t you. This makes me not want to respond to any of you and let you continue to cheerlead each other in your little circle of friends. At the risk of opening up myself to even more scorn, however, I will point out the flaw in your logic, Stone. Straight forward decisions tend to NOT be 5-4 splits. Political ones do.

Written by Right Wing Kamikaze about 6 years ago.

Eric, just tell us how the injustice of denying people promotion because they aren’t the correct ethnicity is anything but straight forward.

Eric, we agree on much, but this case was a clear instance of reverse discrimination and race baiting political pressure. These should be relics of the past now that we have a black President.

And the political nature of a 5-4 decision cuts both ways.

Written by Eric the 1/2 troll about 6 years ago.

TC,

I’m just saying it is less a matter of reverse discrimination and more a matter of fear of frivolous lawsuits in this case. If they had ignored the test results and promoted a minority instead because he/she was a minority it would be a more clear case of reverse discrimination in my view.

I did not say which way the political nature of the decision was cutting (did you make an assumption on my perspective?) just that it appears to be a politically based decision to a large extent. Looks like you concur?

Written by dans about 6 years ago.

One thing that is not being discussed here, is the positive effect this ruling should have on women in the workplace. I am of the opinion that women may see this type of discrimination fairly regularly…

I do find it amazing, and disconcerting, that 4 justices did not see this as reverse discrimination. Is this indicative of a liberal belief that to be the victim of discrimination, one must be anything other than a caucasian male ?

Written by Right Wing Kamikaze about 6 years ago.

“Is this indicative of a liberal belief that to be the victim of discrimination, one must be anything other than a caucasian male ?”

This was reverse discrimination. To deny is to engage in supporting a falsehood. Setting up this country as a place where we have an official racial spoils system will only weaken it by Balkanizing it. This is not the direction we want to go.

1/2 Troll,
Do you even beleive what you say? This is frivolous? A mans career and livelihood is not frivolous, therefore the lawsuit is not frivolous. Sotomayors treatment of the case was frivolous.

Do you consider screwing someone in the furtherence of a racial spoils system frivolous?

Written by Marjorie about 6 years ago.

Sotomayor did not give viable legal reasons to her decision on this case, she just said No. Not a judge I would want preceding over a case or any cases at all.

Supreme Court reversed her decision. question is will those who seek to put her in position change their minds after the Supreme Court reversed her case?

Written by Wolverine about 6 years ago.

Marjorie, you must be an eternal optimist to even pose such a question. The Federal government has become a basket case.

Written by Kevin about 6 years ago.

“These should be relics of the past now that we have a black President.”

Where do you guys get this stuff, seriously?

Hey, did you hear that Indra Nooyi became Fortune 500 CEO of PepsiCo both ridding the business world of racism AND sexism in one fell swoop? AMAZING!! Glad we don’t have to worry about those whiners anymore!!

Written by Eric the 1/2 troll about 6 years ago.

Jacob,

Do you even read what I write or just a single word? The frivolous lawsuit I was referring to is the hypothetical one that New Haven suggested it was trying to avoid by tossing out the results of the test. A lawsuit from a minority claiming that the test unfairly discriminated against THEM. NOT the lawsuit underlying the SC decision. Perhaps the hypothetical lawsuit should NOT be considered frivolous but I hardly think this crowd would make that argument.

Written by Right Wing Kamikaze about 6 years ago.

Reverse discrimination because you fear a frivolous lawsuit is still reverse discrimination.

1/2 pint,
I have re-read the comment you wrote earlier (#13). While it took a few tries, I now see your original intent was as you claim in #21. I therefore withdraw my comment in #17.

Written by Eric the 1/2 troll about 6 years ago.

RWK,

I suppose that was the conclusion of the 5 judges on the SC.

Written by Cathymac about 6 years ago.

Isn’t discrimination just discrimination regardless of who it perpetuated against?

Written by Eric the 1/2 troll about 6 years ago.

Cathymac,

Absolutely. It looks more to me like New Haven was faced with a lawsuit claiming discrimination either way they went in this case. If they left the tests scores stand and awarded promotions to a higher percentage of white firefighters based on those results, the minorities would have sued them. This way the white fire fighters sued them. No win.

Written by dans about 6 years ago.

By this logic then you are saying they should do away with the test as regardless of the outcome they may be sued ?

How do New Haven public and private schools avoid lawsuits when students of different cultural makeups perform differently ?

This argument holds no water..

Written by Cathymac about 6 years ago.

Troll, New Haven may have faced a suit if they had promoted according to the test, but they would have won in that case. In effect, they discriminated against the white FF’s by not promoting according to the test. Title VII applies to everyone, not just minorities.

My point was merely that the term “reverse discrimination” means nothing, as discrimination is discrimination regardless of who it happens to.

Written by dans about 6 years ago.

cmac,

“discrimination is discrimination regardless ”

True enough, is Troll saying that under certain circumstances, it is justified ? Seems like it..

Written by Cathymac about 6 years ago.

What Troll is saying that New Haven trying to avoid a lawsuit is ok, even if it tramples on someone’s civil rights. Not it is not.

Written by dans about 6 years ago.

cmac, things are well ?

Written by Marjorie about 6 years ago.

To # 19
Wolverine,

Hope eternal, if you loose it well than everything becomes hell.

Written by Right Wing Kamikaze about 6 years ago.

Well, maybe Eric was right and it was a no win situation, but now the court has fixed that dilemma in a very clear way by basically overturning the idea of disparate impact.

Written by Cathymac about 6 years ago.

Dan, things are well – what’s shakin in Sterling?

Are you going to the Park View meeting tonight? I will be there.

Written by dans about 6 years ago.

cmac,

Could not make it, my son had a basketball game. Thinks are ok, work is nuts right now..

Written by dans about 6 years ago.

“A legal advocacy group advised by Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor in the 1980s actively opposed conservative Robert H. Bork’s nomination to the high court calling him a “threat” to the “civil rights of the Latino community.”

Judge Sotomayor worked for PRLDEF in various capacities from 1980 until she became a federal judge in 1992, spending most of her time as a board member.

“A cursory look at the limited material now in our possession raises several red flags, including a link between PRLDEF and ACORN, as well as information indicating Judge Sotomayor’s deeper-than-previously thought involvement in developing the legal positions of the organization,” said Stephen Boyd, spokesman for the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Jeff Sessions.”